THE rOUNG NATURALIST. 



137 



correct the Catalogue, what shall we correct it by, and how far shall we go 

 back ? Shall we use our own judgment as to the authors whose works are 

 admitted as authorities, or by what shall we be guided ? Would Mr. Tutt 

 advise that we accept the nomenclature of an author whose work is poor and 

 imperfect on the whole, but of whose figures and descriptions a few may 

 possibly be recognizable, but whose collection is still in existence and acces- 

 sible for reference ? If another author described and figured a species in a 

 perfectly satisfactory manner, but did not name it, would Mr. Tutt connect 

 his name with the species, or would he reserve that honour for an author 

 who subsequently gave it a name ? Many other points might be raised 

 but I do not wish to enlarge. Guenee writes " Impura, Albin," because 

 Albin first described and figured the species. Staudinger writes " Impura, 

 Hubner," because Hubner gave that name to the insect Albin had introduced 

 to the entomological world half-a-century before. Has the point here in- 

 volved ever been settled? Mr. Tutt settles it against Guenee and Albin. 

 Why ? But another difficulty in the way of taking the Catalogue of Drs. 

 Staudinger and Wocke as a starting point and working from it, lies in the 

 very partial, character of the work. It is but a catalogue of the lepidoptera 

 of Europe, or at most of the north-eastern hemisphere. Could we accept it 

 : for other reasons, this objection would be fatal. True the " Systema Naturae" 

 does not contain a tithe of the species known to-day, but it is universal in its 

 application as far as it goes. The " Synomymic Catalogue of Diurnal Lepi- 

 doptera/' by Mr. Kirby, which was published in the same year as the work 

 of Dr. Staudinger and Wocke, is a work of universal application, and might 

 be taken as a starting point on Mr. Tutt's lines, for the butterflies, though I 

 confess I cannot understand a " starting point" based on the works of others. 

 For the other groups we would have to wait. Mr. Kirby's work is certainly 

 of equal merit with that of Dr. Staudinger, though it is not faultless. But 

 should a proposal be made, to accept this and the promised catalogues of other 

 groups, as our starting point, it should be accepted as it stands, and no 

 resurrection men be permitted to alter, on pretence of amending what would 

 then be a settled nomenclature. This is the opposite of Mr. Tutt's proposal 

 to alter Staudinger when there are errors. The best thing of this kind that 

 could be done would be to take the British Museum catalogues, with refer- 

 ence to the Museum collection, but I adhere to the former proposition as 

 really the more satisfactory. 



But is Staudinger's work deserving the high praise Mr. Tutt bestows 

 upon it. It is no doubt of great merit. It has been compiled with con- 

 siderable care, but it has always been noted by British entomologists for 

 ignorance of British species and British authors, I am no authority on no- 



